From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 2 13:36:53 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC95106564A for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 13:36:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from daniel@digsys.bg) Received: from smtp-sofia.digsys.bg (smtp-sofia.digsys.bg [193.68.3.230]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1EC78FC15 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 13:36:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dcave.digsys.bg (dcave.digsys.bg [192.92.129.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-sofia.digsys.bg (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA2DagAf037330 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:36:48 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from daniel@digsys.bg) Message-ID: <4EB1476A.3070204@digsys.bg> Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:36:42 +0200 From: Daniel Kalchev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111007 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org References: <20111102131311.GA56941@icarus.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20111102131311.GA56941@icarus.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Default inode number too low in FFS nowadays? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:36:53 -0000 On 02.11.11 15:13, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 12:57:33PM +0100, Borja Marcos wrote: >> Today I?ve come across an issue long ago forgotten :) Running out of i-nodes. > [...] > > There's a reason /usr on FreeBSD defaults to "all the remaining space on > the disk" if you pick the defaults/auto. Surprise. :-) > > The summarised version is: > > 1. You have control over this yourself: newfs(8) -i flag. You can even > input this flag during sysinstall when building a new system. > > [...] Just for the completeness of it, one would use ZFS and be done with this issue. :-) That would be point 0. in my personal list of suggestions. All the rest would be "if you have good reason to not use ZFS". Daniel